Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nealparr (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 2 February 2008 (→OK, let's shoot the shit as grown ups for a moment.: correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note: This user is not retired, just tired. To help make his experience at Misplaced Pages more productive, he has provided the notice above to inform other editors who collaborate with him. Bears hibernate in winter and bite when you poke them with a stick. This user does not want to be a bear so please respect his weariness when collaborating with him.

Comment on your block

Hi Neal; I saw your name at WP:AN3. For what it's worth, had I been the reviewing admin I don't think I'd have blocked you, or at least not for 48 hours. You've been here for a long time and managed to edit some very contentious topics without running into any problems, and that ought to count for something. Similarly, the other involved account appears to be a fairly openly acknowledged alternate account of someone whose other accounts have all been blocked (some for username issues, some for disruption?). My instinct would be to give you the benefit of the doubt here. However, since the block has been placed and reviewed by two very experienced and even-handed admins, I'm not going to substitute my judgement for theirs and undo it.

Still, my experience has been that you're a solid, level-headed, and valued contributor who works hard to edit constructively in areas where constructive editing is in short supply. I wanted to affirm that, and voice my hope that we don't lose you over this. I will look into the issue with Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) a bit further; it appears quite complex, so I've contacted an admin more familiar with the situation.

I've been in your position, in that it's very easy to get caught up in reverting when the other party appears obviously in the wrong on a basic policy level. Unfortunately, being "right" is rarely accepted as a defense at WP:AN3, and perhaps it ought to be that way. Next time around, please get outside editors or admins involved early. It's painful and it can take a while, but in the end it's the only way to go. I've learned this the hard way myself. I'm happy to look at any situations you're having trouble with down the line. Anyhow, I just wanted to affirm that this incident is obviously highly atypical for you, and I would really hate to see it outweigh the good work you've done or lead you to leave the project. That would be a significant loss. MastCell 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that MastCell. Ultimately there's some things I could have done differently, so I'll take the block as a learning lesson. I'm a pretty patient person, had my patience spread thin, so I guess in a way 48 hours is a good start towards rebuilding patience. On the RETIRED above, the emphasis is on the Tired part. I'll still be around. --Nealparr 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. By the way, there has been some discussion (initiated by Tariqabjotu) of these blocks on WP:AN/I (just scroll past the 7 homeopathy threads to find it). Lucyintheskywithdada was indefinitely blocked by JzG. Tariq had floated the idea of unblocking you as well. MastCell 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat blocks. The best of us go through them. Sometimes I wish you were the only person allowed to edit paranormal articles. I think that we would end up with some great stuff. Oh well. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm not really worried about it. Tariqabjotu was completely justified in the block and my request for unblock was just from my perspective and not necessarily a "justified" reason for unblocking. I was just exercising the option because it was available. If three or four unblock requests were available, I'd probably use them too, just because they're there, not because I'd feel unblocking is necessary to right some great wrong. 48 hours isn't the end of the world. It's already half over anyway. The only place I actually wanted to edit was my user page to remove some personal information. I had an admin do that for me, so now I can relax easier. --Nealparr 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's shoot the shit as grown ups for a moment.

Hi Neal,

OK, let's talk it. What happened and why? I really dont understand. And for someone that is considering putting themsleves forward to adminship, you really did go far beyond the protocols.

My concern is not even for my edits or templates, but you even deleted another template that was none of my doing.

Please, no more ding-dongs back and forward over user pages, let's keep it here or make a dedicated page for.

When I asked you what your interests in the subjects were, I was sincere. I just could not understand how or why one would delete a spiritist/spiritualist or spiritualistic template from, e.g a page on clairvoyance.

I like infoboxes. I find them useful in making lateral connections across the wiki. Obviously others don't ... but we could have worked to refine the template or its usuage on a talk page first and flagged up the page move in the right place.

So, place, I am offering you a handshake on this one. I do feel that you went beyond reasonable and it did become abusive. Even if I was an idiot, or perhaps just inexperience, I think for a potential admin you could have handled it in another way. As you wish to become an admin, I offer you this feedback, that what frustrated me the most was the inaccuracy with which you were hearing what I was saying, e.g. making it out to be something entirely different what what I said, did or intended. Please, ask first; shoot later.

Thank you for conceding the point re spiritualism within philosophy but ... again please ... what on eath was such a big issue that you were willing to throw away your good reputation? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about it on the article's talk pages as needed. I don't really see any reason to discuss it here without third-party involvement. I'm still blocked (strange that you aren't since it hasn't been 48 hours), or else I would have already responded to your comments at the article pages. --Nealparr 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, it appears that I can edit now. I'll respond at the article talk pages. --Nealparr 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)